Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010029152026 2026:GAU-AS:7967-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/41/2026 DR RAMEN TALUKDAR S/O LATE PRANESWAR TALUKDAR, R/O HOUSE NO 37, ANIRBAN NAGAR, GOTANAGAR, MALIGAON, P.O. MALIGAON, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS BY THE COMMISSIONER REPRESENTEDSECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATIONBRHIGHER DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19 3:THE BARKHETRI COLLEGE NARAYANPUR MUKALMUA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL P.O. MUKALMUA DIST. NALBARI ASSAM. 4:SUMANTA BORTHAKUR S/O LATE BHUPENDRA NATH BORTHAKUR GREENLAND APARTMENT BLOCK 2 A-F RUKMINIGAON KHANAPARA GUWAHATI 22 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. R. Roy, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department for respondent Nos.1 & 2. : Mr. S. Dutta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. G. Sarma, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 & 4. Page No.# 2/4 –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 08.06.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. R. Roy, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. G. Sarma, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4. The State is represented by Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department. The appellant was made the President of the Governing Body of Barkhetri College in Nalbari district in the year 2021. According to the Assam Non-Government College Management Rules, now called Assam Provincialised Colleges and Assam Non-Government Colleges Management Rules, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Rules of 2001”), every college affiliated to any Central or State University of Assam and duly concurred by the State Government, would be governed by a Governing Body. The President of the Governing Body has to be a person of eminence from the field of education, whose tenure shall be of 5(five) years, which period could be extended till his successor is appointed. However, under the Rules of 2001, it is within the powers of the Director of Page No.# 3/4 Higher Education to remove a person from the post of President of the Governing Body before five years but only after recording the reasons, in writing. According to the Rules, the tenure of the Governing Body shall be a permanent authority. It has been contended that before the end of the tenure of the appellant, the Governing Body of the Barkhetri college was reconstituted by the order of the Director, Higher Education, naming respondent No.4 as the President. The afore-noted decision was questioned by the appellant in WP(C) No.3998/2025 on various grounds, namely, that the Director, Higher Education, could not have removed him from the post of President of the Governing Body without giving any reason whatsoever; and that the reason given later, during the course of hearing of the writ petition that such removal or reconstitution of the Governing Body was necessitated because of the appellant heading two presidencies in two provincialized colleges located distantly, ought not to have been accepted by the learned Single Judge. In fact, there is no proscription of a person in being appointed as President of the Governing Bodies of two institutions. However, as on date, the appellant has resigned from the Presidency of Harendra Chitra College, Barpeta. There is no gainsaying that before the tenure of the President of the Governing Body of a provincialized college expires, he could be removed with special reasons to be recorded, in writing, but in the present case, since respondent No.4 has already been appointed as the Page No.# 4/4 President of the new Governing Body of the college and the appellant is to superannuate in the month of August, 2026, we do not consider it to be a fit case to interfere with the decision making and reconstitution of the Governing Body of the college in question at this stage for maintaining probity and continuity in the administration of the college. We might perhaps have had interfered with the afore-noted decision but doing so at this stage would only cause disruption of the administration of Barkhetri College. We thus refrain from doing so. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant